Why the Levites?

A little while back I wondered whether God approved of the Levite killing spree in Exodus 32. Jim Jordan has convinced me that God not only approved, but chose the tribe of Levi to be priests on the basis of that action. As Moses declares once they have completed their killing "Today you have been ordained for the service of the Lord" (32:29, 'service' being priestly language).

In Exodus 18 Jethro offers a sacrifice to God. In Exodus 24 the "young men of the people of Israel" are commanded to make sacrifice. Sharing in the food that belongs to God in the holy place was a priestly privilege (c.f. Lev 24:9), but in Exodus 24 God invites representatives from the whole people (Moses "Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel") up the mountain, his holy place, to eat and drink with him. But after Exodus 32, the God restricts such activities to the Levites, and this seems to be particularly tied to their willingness to take violent action.

That priests should be particularly violent may seem strange to us, but Phinehas later in Numbers 25 was certainly not afraid to draw the sword, and a significant part of the priest's job description was guard duty (Num 1:53; 3:6-38; 18:3-7).

It could even be argued that when God declares that he has "taken the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the people of Israel" (Num 8:18), indicates that before the Golden Calf it would have been the firstborn who would have been priests (the "young men" of Exodus 24:5?).

Growing up to judge angels

Now the Bible tells us that the Old Creation was superintended by angels, while the New Creation is superintended by redeemed humanity. To save space, and because this essay is designed as a Bible study, I won't be writing out the passages. You must look them up yourself. Start with 1 Corinthians 6:3, which establishes that at the end of the New Creation we shall judge angels, not vice versa. Then, as regards the Old Creation consider Hebrews 2:2 and Acts 7:53. Turn next to Galatians 3:19, and then read Galatians 4:1-7. These passages show that in the Old Creation we were considered as children, and the angels were our tutors. The chief tutor originally was Lucifer, but he betrayed his calling in the Garden. So the Son of God entered as the Angel of the Lord to guide humanity toward maturity. Before He was the Second Adam, Jesus was the Second Lucifer. Throughout the Old Creation, we see the Angel of the Lord and His spirit angels supervising and judging humanity. Now, however, the man Christ Jesus has ascended to rule the angels, and in union with Him we also rule them.

(James Jordan, A Brief Readers Guide to Revelation, HT Paul Huxley)

Church history in 3 steps

According to Jim 'shine on you crazy diamond' Jordan you can look at the development of church history (or at least it's theology) like this:

• Step 1: Develop the theology of the Trinity (The Early Church).
• Step 2: Once you have done step 1 you now have the ability to develop the theology of the atonement (The Middle Ages).
• Step 3: Once you have done step 2 you now have the ability to develop the theology of how the atonement can be appropriated (Post-Reformation).

No doubt this is horribly reductionistic. However, my extremely limited forays into church history seem at least to suggest there is some truth in it. The early church especially seem to have an amazingly undeveloped doctrine of justification. Anyway, I don't have time to reflect on this further, although I am increasingly convinced of some kind of developmental view of church history (see my post on Schaff). It only seems sad that at present in Europe and North America past developments in understanding of the bible's teaching on atonement and justification are being undermined; not so much by questioning, which must always continue, but by failing to seriously consider the writings of those who thought much more deeply about such things than some at present. I wonder what people are thinking about in the rest of the Christian church, perhaps that will be where new developments will come.

Seperation from God - judgment or blessing?

Provocative title huh?

It is common Evangelical parlance to refer to hell, and judgment in particular as being separation from God. I'm not so sure that this is a biblical idea though.

It seems to me that throughout the bible that being close to God is a blessing but also a potential source of curse. Distance and barriers between the presence of God is a way of protecting those distanced from the white-hot holiness of God - although the aim should always to come nearer without becoming toast.

In a post sometime ago I talked about how the Israelite camp in the wilderness was organised so that the Tabernacle was encircled by Levites "so that there may be no wrath on the congregation of the people of Israel". At the foot of Sinai the people of Israel are clearly afraid of coming close to God's presence in Sinai and YHWH agreed they should be careful saying "Take care not to go up into the mountain or touch the edge of it". Nadab and Abihu weren't alone in learning that being close to God was a dangerous thing (Lev 10) throughout the Bible when God comes close death comes as well as blessing because he cannot be close to sin. This is particularly clear in the story in Samuel about the capture of the Ark which brought both judgment and blessing on those who came near it. Throughout the Bible people are astonished to see God and yet live (cf. Genesis 32:30; Deuteronomy 5:24; Judges 6:22; Judges 13:22; Exodus 33:20; Isaiah 6:5).

In the OT cult the closer you got to God the greater the sacrifice needed to cleanse you, and I think Jim Jordan (who has made this clearer for me) is right that the garments of the priests consist of lots of layers and include a 'breastplate' as further 'protection' from the results of sinful man coming close to the Holy God.

Perhaps then even the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden, and Cain's exile from the presence of God can be seen as ways of postponing the judgment of immediate death.

Of course "a day in [God's] courts is better than a thousand elsewhere. I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of wickedness." but the only way in which you can enter God's courts with confidence is by faith - by putting on breastplate of (Christ's) righteousness, and clothing ourselves with our Saviour who is the only one with the right to be there. When you are invited to God's feast that is an amazing blessing but not if you have not come dressed right (Matt 22)

I think this helps us understand the role of the law (another post perhaps) and the role of Israel in heaping up transgressions to be placed on Christ for the whole world. I think it helps us to consider baptism, preaching of the bible etc - they are all intrinsically good and blessings, and yet for some they will be a curse. It is also useful apologetically. Doug Pagitt may appear to be a very confused person in his recent interview but he may be right in one respect, at the resurrection we will all end up in one place, before the throne of God, but for some (frighteningly) God will be a consuming fire and for others (by God's grace alone) will bask in the the Glory of God will be light and warmth (Rev 21).

That's a rubbish post on a awesome subject, but at least I managed to get a few things down. Please forgive the rough edges, I'm still thinking this through and I am aware that I may be misusing Eph 6 and Matt 22 (more thinking required) and really have barely hinted at the beauty of holiness. But if anyone has any thoughts please comment but be gentle.